Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Awards Nearly $2 Billion For Solar Power

Posted by Soulskill on from the proactively-cleaning-up-sunlight-spills dept.

crimeandpunishment writes "President Obama says it's time to heat up solar power, and he's willing to spend a big chunk of federal money to do it. Saturday the president announced the government is giving nearly $2 billion to companies that are building new solar plants in Arizona, Colorado, and Indiana. The president says this will create thousands of jobs and increase our use of renewable energy."

8 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Can somebody say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Drunken sailor?

    1. Re:Can somebody say by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.

    2. Re:Can somebody say by Jorkapp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's doable, provided the American people are comfortable with the use of nuclear weapons. After all, the in-service ICBM only costs $7,000,000 each. Just a couple of those should be enough to annihilate just about any nation. No exit strategy required.

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    3. Re:Can somebody say by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      In other words, it's by no means a closed system. I was disappointed that Cash For Clunkers didn't demand more of an energy savings and allowed what I considered to be too-new-to-trash cars to get trashed. But on the whole, it did work.

      So on the one hand..

      ...you know for certain that there were significant negative effects such as 'too-new-to-thrash cars' being trashed, and that the fuel efficiency increase mandated was only minor...

      ..but on the other you declare for certain that "it did work"

      You have come into this with your mind made up, and even though you can list ways that it shouldnt have been made up without a real inspection of the factors, well fuck it.. "it worked"

      You can start here to figure out why an old car that gets 20 MPG is awesome for the environment vs the manufacture and use of a new car that only gets a modest increase in fuel efficiency.
      Cash for clunkers was a huge failure for the environment, but it saved GM dealerships. That was its point.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. Last time I checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wind power offered way more bang for the buck, in fact it was the only really contender with traditional energy sources. Has anything changed, or is the government still being stupid with our money?

  3. The deuce you say! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What? Arizona? I thought they were 1000 * Nazi_Germany() and stopping all the Einstein clones from crossing the border to build steel mills? I'm so confused. What's our stance on Eurasia now?

  4. Re:Luddite by freshfromthevat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If only we had spent that 2 trillion or so that we spent on tax cuts and wars on research.

    You can't spend money on a tax cut. The sentence doesn't make sense. How about spending the money DESPITE the Tax cut? That's just typical leftist idiocy.

    I completely agree about not spending money on wars. However I think Fed spending taxpayer money on research is just as dumb as the rest of the pork crap the Fed has been doing all of my life.

    --
    .. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
  5. jobs by freshfromthevat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We did spend that money - we spent it on Second homes in the Hamptons, Ivy league tuition, yachts, etc. It did not result in more job creation - in fact, the economy cratered.

    May I point out that homes and yachts are built by people who have jobs?

    --
    .. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham